I don't see the objection to using LLMs to check for grammatical mistakes and spelling errors. That strikes me as a reactionary and dogmatic position, not a rational one.

Anyone who has done any serious writing knows that a good editor will always find a dozen or more errors in any essay of reasonable length, and very few people are willing to pay for professional proofreading services on blog posts. On the other side of the coin, readers will wince and stumble over such errors; they will not wonder at the artisanal authenticity of your post, but merely be annoyed. Wabi-sabi is an aesthetic best reserved for decor, not prose.

▲

keiferski 10 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, I agree. There's nothing wrong with using an LLM or a spell-checker to improve your writing. But I do think it's important to have the LLM point out the errors, not rewrite the text directly. This lets you discover errors but avoid the AI-speak.

▲

CuriouslyC 10 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The fact that you were downvoted into dark grey for this post on this forum makes me very sad. I hope it's just that this article is attracting a certain kind of segment of the community.

	▲	olooney 10 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm pretty sure my mistake was assuming people had read the article and knew the author veered wildly halfway through towards also advocating against using LLMs for proofreading and that you should "just let your mistakes stand." Obviously no one reads the article, just the headline, so they assumed I was disagreeing with that (which I was not.) Other comments that expressed the same sentiment as mine but also quoted that part did manage to get upvoted. This is an emotionally charged subject for many, so they're operating in Hurrah/Boo mode[1]. After all, how can we defend the value of careful human thought if we don't rush blindly to the defense of every low-effort blog post with a headline that signals agreement with our side? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism
	▲	philipwhiuk 9 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No it's because he introduced an obscure term that came out of nowhere which is both a poor communication style and indicative of AI.

▲

ryanmcbride 10 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You thought we wouldn't notice that you used AI on this comment but you were wrong.

▲

olooney 10 days ago | parent [-]

Here is a piece I wrote recently on that very subject. Why don't you read that to see if I'm a human writer?

https://www.oranlooney.com/post/em-dash/

▲

philipwhiuk 9 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	ryanmcbride 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		That wasn't actually why I posted that I was just guessing and thought it'd be funny if I was right.